Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies against the order directing the plaintiffs to give the market value of the land and pay court-fees thereon. The plaintiffs paid court-fees on the basis of the nett profits from the land for the previous year claiming to come within Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) of the Court-Fees Act and the proviso to the Madras Act which brings in the method of court -fee calculation provided in Section 7, Clause (v). Kumaraswami Sastri and Wallace, JJ., in Rani Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (1927) 55 M.L.J. 345 : I.L.R. Mad. 664 overruled the preliminary objection and held on a consideration of the authorities that such an order can be the subject of interference under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. My attention has been drawn to the decision by Sir Sidney Burn, J., in K. Manatithunainatha Desikar v. Gopala Chettiar AIR1939Mad380 to the contrary where Ram Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Ramaswami Pandia, Thalavcm (1927) 55 M.L.J. 345: I.L.R. Mad. 664 was considered. Apart from the fact that the Bench decision is binding on me, it must also be pointed out that the facts in K. Manait